- From: Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 03:13:02 -0700
- To: Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future? Am 06.08.2017 3:20 vorm. schrieb "Kevin Marks" <kevinmarks@gmail.com>: > That use case sounds more like rel="canonical" > > On 6 Aug 2017 2:07 am, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, or a pointer to > > previous discussion, about why the bookmark link relation can't be used > > with the <link> element [1]. > > > > The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list > > [2] where a new link relation has been proposed to encourage persistent > > linking [3]. The proposed 'identifier' relation seems to closely resemble > > the idea of a permalink (a persistent link) that can be found in the > > definition of bookmark. If bookmark allowed use with the <link> element > > then I think there would be less of a demonstrated need for the new > > 'identifier' link relation. > > > > Thanks for any information you can provide. I apologize if I'm restarting > > a conversation that has already happened. > > > > //Ed > > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark > > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/ > > current/msg00670.html > > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-identifier/ >
Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 10:13:29 UTC